W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > January 2004

RE: Proposed replacement text for Section 1.6

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:52:16 -0500
Message-ID: <BDD579D96530CA4BAAAD5D9549BDE779014581F2@resmsg01.sagus.com>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org


> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Booth [mailto:dbooth@w3.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:38 AM
> To: Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed replacement text for Section 1.6

> I think that needs to be qualified a little, since the 
> service requester and provider *do* share a type system -- 
> the type system that is specified in the WSDL.  However, they 
> don't necessarily share an *implementation* type system -- 
> they only need to share a type system for the messages that 
> are on the wire.

Yup.  OO interfaces can be abstract, but do assume that the implementation,
uhh, implements the interface.  SOA interfaces say nothing about
implementation, only about messages, and the "types" in a WSDL document
refer to the schema of the messages, not the abstract class of the
implementation object.

Anyway, I'll try to say this more clearly in the next draft.
Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2004 11:54:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:10 UTC